[vmpaul]

Link is here. Here are some sampling's:

Congress, with only a limited debate, has given the Bush administration a green light for the biggest revitalization of the country's nuclear weapons program since the end of the Cold War, leaving many Democrats and even some hawkish Republicans seething.

"This has been a good year," said Linton Brooks, the administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which develops and manages the country's nuclear weapons arsenal. "I'm pretty happy we essentially got what we wanted."

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities.

"I'm totally offended by this administration," said Rep. Curt Weldon, R- Pa., a onetime White House ally on nuclear issues, and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "I happen to think they're out of bounds on this. There's an important sea change in the world, and we have no idea what our policy is.

"It's a major national scandal in the making," Weldon said in an interview with The Chronicle last week. "I'm totally frustrated."

...the administration is seeking a new stockpile of both some Cold War-era warheads and new, smaller weapons that can be used for limited attacks and for destroying caches of weapons of mass destruction, especially in buried bunkers, without causing indiscriminate destruction and loss of life. It has also proposed a policy of possible pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.

...highlights not only the administration's push for new kinds of warheads, but also the billions it is planning to spend on reducing the time it would take to launch a nuclear strike and on a new generation of missile re-entry vehicles, among other things. The re-entry vehicles would allow the military to steer warheads toward targets, even moving targets, entering the atmosphere from space.

"We have more nuclear weapons now than we know what to do with,'' said Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Appropriations Committee's energy and water subcommittee, which controls the nuclear weapons budget. "I'm concerned about our image in the world when we're telling others not to build these things, and then we push these new programs."

Rep. Joel Hefley, R-Colo., a senior member of the Armed Services Committee who voted against funding some programs, argued in an interview, "We don't need new weapons, and in fact we cause more harm than good in our relations with other countries and in our moral position on nuclear proliferation. I think that they're almost obsolete. I'm not convinced that we have to have that capability."

What is this administration thinking? "pre-emptive first use of nuclear weapons in emergencies, even against non-nuclear states.". Are they nuts? Or is this just another boondoggle to make the Bush's Defense industry cronies richer?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Are they nuts? Or is this just another boondoggle to make the Bush's Defense industry cronies richer?

I don't think those two assessments are mutually exclusive.

[petehammer]

Wow, what the hell is going on?

I thought those days were behind us. What are we going to do, nuke bin Laden?

I see we're well on the path of "pissing off every single country in the world." USA, USA, USA!

[eklipse]

****wits.

[lil'babykitten]

Oh for **** sake.

Well they do say history repeats itself. Will any one live to tell this one is the real question.

Jeezy Creezy! (as Demonhood would say)

[thunderous_funker]

Man, every time I shake of the overwhelming sense of 80's Deja Vu I've been having since Dubya won in 2000, something like this happens....

[petehammer]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Man, every time I shake of the overwhelming sense of 80's Deja Vu I've been having since Dubya won in 2000, something like this happens....

What are you talking about? What about when the USSR strikes first? Huh? What then?

(Reads newspapers, internet)

What do you mean they're no longer a threat?

[voodoo]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Man, every time I shake of the overwhelming sense of 80's Deja Vu I've been having since Dubya won in 2000, something like this happens....

Ahh the 80s

Somehow Bush doesn't do it for me. I always felt more "80s" in Ronnie. At least GWB is bringing James Baker back in the spotlight - now Baker, he is so 80s Reagan-ish!!

[swrate]

We have more nuclear weapons now than we know what to do with,'' said Rep. David Hobson

Is there any expiration date on the weapons, and if yes, who "inherits" them?

[Face Ache]

Paranoia is part of being #1 isn't it? All downhill from there.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by petehammer:
I thought those days were behind us.

I suspect there are many who dearly miss those days and desperately want them back.

[thunderous_funker]

Thunderous_funker's 80's Deja Vu since 2000 election:

Recycled 80's politicians
Massive job losses
Jingoistic nationalism in the face of massive international criticism
Militarization
Rampant government sponsered fear-mongering about our "way of life" being threatened some insidous foreign ideology
Proxy wars and Realpolitik
Total political gridlock and accrimony
Methodical attack on nation's labor and environmental standards
The cry of "de-regulation" and "self-regulation"
Cozing up to nasty ditactors who help us against nasty dictators we decry
Fear of Armageddon
and last but not least: Voodoo Economics

And that's just the short list off the top of my head.

[wang_himself]

Well at least WWIII will only last 3 hours. (That is about about how long it takes for the nukes to launch and land and emergency response systems to retaliate killing everyone)

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I don't think those two assessments are mutually exclusive.

So, basically we're out of luck because they can walk and chew gum at the same time.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Thunderous_funker's 80's Deja Vu since 2000 election:

Recycled 80's politicians
Massive job losses
Jingoistic nationalism in the face of massive international criticism
Militarization
Rampant government sponsered fear-mongering about our "way of life" being threatened some insidous foreign ideology
Proxy wars and Realpolitik
Total political gridlock and accrimony
Methodical attack on nation's labor and environmental standards
The cry of "de-regulation" and "self-regulation"
Cozing up to nasty ditactors who help us against nasty dictators we decry
Fear of Armageddon
and last but not least: Voodoo Economics

And that's just the short list off the top of my head.

I was thinking the exact same thing this weekend. It's as if Bush is following the Reagan right-wing recipe to a T.

But with Reagan you could understand the ideological and practical reasons behind some of his policy decisions, even if you didn't agree with them. Militarization was a response to the Soviets, deregulation and less taxes were based on the his oft-stated desire to have less government, etc.. Bush, seems to be implementing the same type of policies but they aren't based on the situations at hand. This nuclear buildup is the latest example. Why? Our biggest threat is terrorism and we can't respond by bludgeoning other countries with nuclear weapons. It's not an effective solution. Plus, it's not emboldening our alliances like it did in the Cold War but destroying them.

Bush is a crib-sheet Republican. He seems to know all the pat answers but hasn't realized the questions are different this time. Just my .02¢

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I was thinking the exact same thing this weekend. It's as if Bush is following the Reagan right-wing recipe to a T.

But with Reagan you could understand the ideological and practical reasons behind some of his policy decisions, even if you didn't agree with them. Militarization was a response to the Soviets, deregulation and less taxes were based on the his oft-stated desire to have less government, etc.. Bush, seems to be implementing the same type of policies but they aren't based on the situations at hand. This nuclear buildup is the latest example. Why? Our biggest threat is terrorism and we can't respond by bludgeoning other countries with nuclear weapons. It's not an effective solution. Plus, it's not emboldening our alliances like it did in the Cold War but destroying them.

Bush is a crib-sheet Republican. He seems to know all the pat answers but hasn't realized the questions are different this time. Just my .02¢

Wow. Nice work. I think that is rather insightful, actually.

Perhaps they are using the crib-sheet for PR cover and to maintain the traditional constituencies. Behind the rhetoric, however, their aims seem to be quite different in substance and purpose from the Reaganites.

[vmpaul]

But other than a desire for attention and power, what other aims? Maybe I'm underestimating Bush but I don't see anything deeper than the standard Republican responses to every problem - deregulation, less taxes, and militarization.

[thunderous_funker]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
But other than a desire for attention and power, what other aims? Maybe I'm underestimating Bush but I don't see anything deeper than the standard Republican responses to every problem - deregulation, less taxes, and militarization.

Don't forget xenophobia and privatization.

[vmpaul]

Right, Check, got'em.

[Jim Paradise]

Remember that time that the US government pissed and moaned about other countries having weapons of mass destruction, but didn't give a **** if it continued to develop them or threaten to use them preemptively?

Yeah... those were good times.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Wow. Nice work. I think that is rather insightful, actually.

Perhaps they are using the crib-sheet for PR cover and to maintain the traditional constituencies. Behind the rhetoric, however, their aims seem to be quite different in substance and purpose from the Reaganites.

I think the difference is that Reagan was a political idealogue: he had the same trappings, but was sincere, and his policies, for the most part, were consistent with his stated ideals.
I disagreed with nearly everything he did, but I think there was a congruence between philosophy and policy.

Bush, or more precisely the neocons, are using idealogies as smokescreens for their real agendas. Because of that, they shift from stated justification to the next justification, if it seems to work better. First its the imminent threat, then as no WMDs show up, its a humanitarian mission....etc, etc. Because the philosophy, as stated, is a sham, its easily changed to adapt to whatever is the prevailing PR needs. There is no congruence between policy and philosophy, because the "philosophy" is a codpiece over the mercenary actual agenda.
The neocons are using the same script as reagan, but they aren't method actors. They can't fake sincerity all that well. Luckily for them, their constituents are not that critical, willing to accept anything they are told, hook line and sinker.

I didn't like the reagan policies, but I like the neocon policies even less, because they are USING the reagan policies to hide their real policies, which are much, much worse.

you need to be very, very concerned that a group that is seeking to completely control the government, the people, and the world is intent on building up its nuclear arsenal.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:

I didn't like the reagan policies, but I like the neocon policies even less, because they are USING the reagan policies to hide their real policies, which are much, much worse.

you need to be very, very concerned that a group that is seeking to completely control the government, the people, and the world is intent on building up its nuclear arsenal.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

But to what end? What could their agenda be other than the standard Republican hot-button issues?

If we were living in an Authoritarian regime and they were just trying to stay in power that would makes sense. We live in country governed by the rule of law. Peaceful transition of power in regular election cycles. Even in my most cynical moments I don't see the neocons attempting to upturn that cart.

I think you attribute too much to them. IMO, I don't think it's that deep.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
But to what end? What could their agenda be other than the standard Republican hot-button issues?

If we were living in an Authoritarian regime and they were just trying to stay in power that would makes sense. We live in country governed by the rule of law. Peaceful transition of power in regular election cycles. Even in my most cynical moments I don't see the neocons attempting to upturn that cart.

I think you attribute too much to them. IMO, I don't think it's that deep.

you're only looking at the political. The neocon agenda involves the military industrial complex....they only need to control the govt. through bush jr. long enough to get their foot in the door on the infrastructure in the mideast....which they've already accomplished, for Halliburton, Bechtel, MCI, etc.
Once ensconced, they can continue to wield power and amass obscene profits by CONTROLLING the flow of oil and other commodities, currency and banking, etc., INDEPENDENT of who is in office.
Mark my words, the neocons will be spinning their webs long after Bush is out of office. All they really needed to do was get the Iraq infrastructure under their control. From there, they will have trillions of dollars, in addition to control of the region. Once you have that, the presidency of the US is chump change.

[vmpaul]

I don't know Lerk. that's quite conspiratorial and elaborate. Maybe too complex for this bunch. I mean, look at their leader. I don't think he has the intellect to compete on the Wheel of Fortune.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I don't know Lerk. that's quite conspiratorial and elaborate. Maybe too complex for this bunch. I mean, look at their leader. I don't think he has the intellect to compete on the Wheel of Fortune.

who, Bush?
Bush is not the leader of the neocons.

[vmpaul]

I guess I'm not up to speed every clique in Washington. Bush is the President. I thought that meant he was in charge.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I guess I'm not up to speed every clique in Washington. Bush is the President. I thought that meant he was in charge.

LOL.

no, I'm referring to a group of people that were around back when reagan was president and who forged their own brand of neoconservatism.
this groups includes, but is not limited to, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfowitz.....
They've been in the rings of power for some time, and took advantage of the hysteria around 9/11 to push forward an agenda they've been trying to push forward for decades. Bush was simply the first to give them the go ahead.

here is a related group with members that overlap

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I don't know Lerk. that's quite conspiratorial and elaborate. Maybe too complex for this bunch. I mean, look at their leader. I don't think he has the intellect to compete on the Wheel of Fortune.

What's so far fetched about oil companies wanting a bigger piece of the pie and using any means at their disposal (one of which happens to be the office of the President at the moment) to get it?

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I guess I'm not up to speed every clique in Washington. Bush is the President. I thought that meant he was in charge.

Bush is temporarily in charge of the country. He is not in charge of the Republican party nor the sect of that party referred to as "Neocons". He is merely a figure-head of both for the present time. Once he no longer suits their needs, he will be replaced.

[Spliffdaddy]

holy cow.

the conspiracy theories have gone way over the top.

I reckon it's important to the liberals to pretend that fully half of the American population didn't vote for Dubya.

It's either a "neocon conspiracy" or the voter's will.

I can't wait for the next election.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I reckon it's important to the liberals to pretend that fully half of the American population didn't vote for Dubya.

Actually, hon, fully THREE-QUARTERS of eligible Americans didn't vote for Dubya.

-s*

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I reckon it's important to the liberals to pretend that fully half of the American population didn't vote for Dubya.

ROTFLMAO! did you intend to say that? I don't have to pretend that OVER half the voters who voted did NOT vote for Dubya. that's what happened....Are you practicing revisionist history again?

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
It's either a "neocon conspiracy" or the voter's will.

the two are completely unrelated. The neocons have been plying their agenda long before the election and long after it.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
What's so far fetched about oil companies wanting a bigger piece of the pie and using any means at their disposal (one of which happens to be the office of the President at the moment) to get it?


Bush is temporarily in charge of the country. He is not in charge of the Republican party nor the sect of that party referred to as "Neocons". He is merely a figure-head of both for the present time. Once he no longer suits their needs, he will be replaced.

I don't know. After his handling of Iraq I wouldn't trust Bush & Co. to run Cupertino, let alone the country for another 4 years but even I'm not that cynical.

[Ayelbourne]

Reversing a decade of restraint in nuclear weapons policy, Congress agreed to provide more than $6 billion for research, expansion and upgrades in the country's nuclear capabilities.[/B]

Gosh, you know - I honestly can't think of any better use to put this money towards than jump-starting a nuclear buildup...

[petehammer]

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
Thunderous_funker's 80's Deja Vu since 2000 election:

Recycled 80's politicians
Massive job losses
Jingoistic nationalism in the face of massive international criticism
Militarization
Rampant government sponsered fear-mongering about our "way of life" being threatened some insidous foreign ideology
Proxy wars and Realpolitik
Total political gridlock and accrimony
Methodical attack on nation's labor and environmental standards
The cry of "de-regulation" and "self-regulation"
Cozing up to nasty ditactors who help us against nasty dictators we decry
Fear of Armageddon
and last but not least: Voodoo Economics

And that's just the short list off the top of my head.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result." -Albert Einstein

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
holy cow.

the conspiracy theories have gone way over the top.

I reckon it's important to the liberals to pretend that fully half of the American population didn't vote for Dubya.

It's either a "neocon conspiracy" or the voter's will.

I can't wait for the next election.

DO the math. A few percent actually voted for him. The vast majority knew it was just voting for "Dumb and Dumber", and they were bright enough not to hurt the economy by leaving work to participate.

The real consipracy was the election killing millions of hours off the work day with people leaving work an hour early, or getting in late... that's millions and millions of dollars of lost productivity in our economy. Not to mention the endless hours where employees sat around watching people count votes on TV.

There's your conspiracy.



Regarding the topic, the Offical US policy on nuclear weapons is to keep more than any other nation on hand. It's from the cold war.

Bush is a huge fan of Cold war tactics. He is a huge fan of showing off, even if it's in a manner that would be negative to the united states (such as hindering the peace process).

If anything, Bush is going to order the research into more powerful weapons... not dismantling.

Remember: Peace doesn't win elections. Being a leader during a war does.

He does what his party tells him to do. And that is to win the next election.

[Spliffdaddy]

none of that made any sense whatsoever.

[itai195]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Remember: Peace doesn't win elections. Being a leader during a war does.

"He Kept Us Out of War" -- Woodrow Wilson campaign slogan, 1916

It has nothing to do with peace or war, it's the perception of strong leadership. If being a leader during war wins elections, someone forget to tell that to LBJ.